MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS
METU STUDENTS COLLEGE LIFE
SATISFACTION
Furkan Berk DANIŞMAN
Gizem SARUL
Niyousha AMİNİ
Osman Orçun ADA
Sena Gülizar AKTAŞ
Sıla İlyürek KILIÇ
ANKARA
2022-2023
1
Abstract
The research was conducted to identify the factors that influence college students' satisfaction with
their college experience. Firstly, the study was focused on the literature review to determine
relevant factors that have been previously studied in the literature. Then, the survey analysis
examined three main independent factors that have been found to be related to college students'
satisfaction: Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, and Academic Performance. The findings of
the study suggested that the most important factor affecting students' satisfaction with their college
experience is their satisfaction with their chosen major. This means that students who are satisfied
with the major they have chosen are more likely to be overall satisfied with their college
experience. It's worth noting that, while the study found that major satisfaction is the most crucial
factor, it doesn't mean that other factors such as Social Self-Efficacy, Academic Performance, and
Campus Life Satisfaction are not important. Based on these findings, it is recommend that students
prioritize their major satisfaction when making college choices in order to maximize their overall
satisfaction with their college experience.
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................3
1.1 Aim of The Study
1.2 Research Questions
1.3 Survey Description
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................. 5
2.1 Literature Review on Major Satisfaction
2.2 Literature Review on Social Self-Efficacy
2.3 Literature Review on Academic Performance
2.4 Literature Review on Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, Academic Performance &
Campus Life Satisfaction
3. METHODOLOGY/ANALYSIS… .................................................................... 7
4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS… .......................................................................... 9
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
4.2 Major Satisfaction
4.3 Social Self-Efficacy
4.4 Academic Performance
4.5 Campus Life Satisfaction
5. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 23
6. REFERENCES… ............................................................................................... 23
3
1-) Introduction
The study aims to explore whether and how major satisfaction, social self-efficacy, and
academic performance are associated with METU students’ satisfaction with campus life. Besides
using major satisfaction, social self-efficacy, and academic performance as quantitative and
qualitative indicators, the residential place of the students is used as a categorical variable as well,
since the location of the METU campus might be considered as a “non-city-center” location. In
addition, the literature indicates that not only there might be a relationship between these factors to
the campus life satisfaction of students, but also there is a significant relationship between the
factors as well. Therefore, prior research and investigations are strongly supporting the idea that
there is a correlation between the dependent variable and affecting factors as much as the
correlation between the factors. In light of this potential, the research seeks to give a solution and
provide suggestions to those METU students who are dissatisfied and meet difficulties to achieve
their goals and dreams during their college years. The following diagram illustrates the connection
between the identified factors and campus life satisfaction.
Figure 1: Connection between the factors and campus life satisfaction
1.1-) Aim of the research
This research aims to identify the key factors that influence student satisfaction with their
experience on a college campus. These factors can include major satisfaction, social self-efficacy,
and academic performance. The goal is to use statistical models to better understand the
relationships between these factors and student satisfaction, and to use this information to guide
future research studies. This research will help in understanding the factors that promote student
satisfaction and can help the college administration to improve the student's life on campus.
4
1.2-) Research Questions
In this research, there are three factors that affect students’s campus life satisfaction - major
satisfaction, self efficacy, academic performance. Research questions were illustrated in the
following table.
Attribute Null Hypothesis (H
0
) Alternative Hypothesis (H
1
)
Major Satisfaction
There is no statistically significant
difference between means of male
and female students' overall major
satisfaction.
There is a statistically significant
difference between means of male
and female students' overall major
satisfaction.
Social Self Efficiency
Students with a 3.5 or higher
social self efficacy value produce
equal and lower academic
performance than Students with a
lower social self efficacy value.
Students with a 3.5 or higher social
self efficacy value produce higher
academic performance than Students
with a lower social self efficacy
value.
Academic Performance
There is no statistically difference
in the average campus life
satisfaction between students with
an average of over 3.0 GPA and
students with an average of less
than 3.0 GPA.
There is statistically difference in
the average campus life satisfaction
between students with an average of
over 3.0 GPA and students with an
average of less than 3.0 GPA.
Table 1: Statistical hypothesis and factors
1.3-) Survey Description
The survey of college life satisfaction among METU students was conducted, consisting of
57 questions covering various aspects of their university experience such as satisfaction with their
major, academic performance, and social self-efficacy. The survey utilized a variety of question
formats including Likert scales, drop-down options, open-ended questions, and matrix questions. It
aimed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data to gain an understanding of the students'
overall satisfaction with their college experience. 249 students participated in the survey, which was
administered through a combination of online and in-person methods, with a response rate of 80%.
5
2-) Review of Literature
2.1-) Literature Review on Major Satisfaction
The studies on how to feel well or at least better are best conceptualized under the name
“subjective well-being” (Diener, 1999). Diener defines subjective well-being as “people’s
evaluations of their livesevaluations that are both affective and cognitive” (Diener, 2000). Pesch
et al. (2018) indicated in the research new concept is defined as ‘‘enjoyment of one’s role or
experiences as a student’’ (Lent et al., 2007) to evaluate college students’ satisfaction. Among all
the forms of academic satisfaction, major satisfaction has received the most attention in the
experimental literature.”. Students’ satisfaction with their academic major may predict academic
performance, social self-efficacy, and overall life satisfaction.
Kim Hee-Yung (2009) and Pesch et al. (2018) also made research regarding major
Satisfaction. They focused on how to scale major satisfaction and which factors have an effect on it.
However, in this research, the focus is to advance the progress that has been made and measure
major satisfaction by using these findings and analyzing its psychometric properties to check
whether there is an association between major satisfaction and the campus life satisfaction of
METU students.
2.2-) Literature Review on Social Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy has been defined as a person's belief in successfully performing a task
(Bandura, 1997). Having this competence in the social domain allows a person to be effective in
social interactions and to establish positive interpersonal relationships. For a college student, failing
in the campus social life may negatively affect the student academically, socially, and mentally,
which in turn may reduce her/him overall satisfaction at the university. For instance, ineffective
peer group social connections may lead to loneliness in college students, which may result in
depression, low self-esteem, and poor academic performance (Blai, 1989). Moreover, these negative
social behaviors may seriously damage the career path of students.
In order to measure the association of self-efficacy with social behavior, research conducted
by Smith and Betz (2000) studied 354 undergraduate students participating in a psychology course
at Ohio State University. Smith and Betz found high consistency in a development sample of 354
undergraduate students with respect to the Scale of Perceived Social Efficacy (PSSE) which
measures the level of confidence in a variety of social situations. They discovered a robust
6
relationship between social efficacy and the career development phase in college students (Smith
and Betz, 2000).
In light of this finding, in this survey study, we will attempt to find out if self-efficiency and
campus life satisfaction of METU students are associated, as well as how the social aspects
correspond to academic performance and major satisfaction.
2.3-) Literature Review on Academic Performance
Intuitively, a strong academic background and skill set are important to college achievement.
However, it is normally believed that a host of other students’ personal and institutional attributes
impact student attitudes or their satisfaction with the college experience. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)
theorized that an individual’s intentions, and thus their behavior, may be predicted by attitudes.
From this basis, other researchers have offered that student satisfaction supports their intention to
stay in college, which supports student retention (Martirosyan, Saxon, & Wanjohi, 2014).
Kamemera et. al (2003) reported that student satisfaction with the learning environment and
student services was correlated with their performance. Palak and Walls (2009) found a positive
relationship between satisfaction and achievement. Dryden, Webster, and Fraser (2010) maintained
that achievement was not related to satisfaction with learning except for students with the highest
satisfaction ratings. Learning was most effective with high satisfaction, high cohesion, and low
friction. The literature review showed a mixed relationship between satisfaction and academic
achievement. Taking this into account, our study shifts to examining the role of students' academic
performance on campus life satisfaction and investigates the relationship between the satisfaction of
METU students and academic performance.
2.4-) Literature Review on Major Satisfaction, Social Self-Efficacy, Academic
Performance & Campus Life Satisfaction
It would not be wrong to assume that there is an intuitive connection between university
students' self-efficacy and major satisfaction of the university students. Komarajju, Swanson, and
Nadler (2014) conducted research with 226 students to verify this hypothesis. As a result of the
regression analysis, they observed that the increase in the self-efficacy of the university students
boosted their course satisfaction with their major satisfaction (Komarraju, Nadler & Swanson,
2014). Likewise, we anticipate that the results of our study will demonstrate a link between self-
efficacy and major satisfaction for METU students.
7
It is not difficult to assume that a satisfied and social student will also be successful
academically. In order to prove that idea empirically, in the article Life Satisfaction and Student
Performance, overall life satisfaction was considered as a dependent variable and the students'
GPAs were examined in relation to their cumulative GPAs and life domains (Rode et al., 2005).
Similarly, in our project, we are planning to examine the relationship between students' GPAs and
their academic achievements by considering campus life satisfaction as a dependent variable.
3-) Methodology/Analysis
It was conducted a survey to students using an online platform called Jotform in order to
gather information for our analysis. Then we it organized and prepared the collected data for
analysis. We utilized the ggplot2 package in R-Studio to create visual representations of the data.
We determined whether the variables in question were parametric or non-parametric using the
Shapiro Wilk test. Based on the results, we either employed a linear regression model or an
appropriate non-parametric test for further analysis.
Some of the major satisfaction questions were divided into three subgroups satisfaction with
training, satisfaction with the facilities, and satisfaction with the program schedules. Responses are
obtained using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very well, strongly disagree) to 5 (very
well, strongly agree). After that, subgroup responses were averaged for each person. Then, the
descriptive statistics were examined. A bar graph was created to examine the means of subgroups
by faculties. Shapiro Wilk normality test was applied to determine whether the satisfactions of
males and females were normally distributed. In addition, the shape of the distribution was
measured by calculating the kurtosis and skewness coefficients. The z-test was used to determine
whether there is a significant difference between the overall major satisfaction means of females
and males. The reason for this is the population variance was unknown, however, the sample size
was over 30. The bar plot was established to show the trend of increasing/decreasing students
confidence in readiness for the world of work through their academic classes. Shapiro Wilk
normality test and QQ-plot were applied to determine whether major satisfaction was normally
distributed or not. Regression analysis was used to examine the causal relationships between
academic performance, campus life satisfaction (predictor variables), and major satisfaction
(response variable). A correlation chart was generated to examine the relationship between all the
variables.
This survey involved the Perceived Social Self-Efficacy (PSSE) by Smith & Betz (2000).
the measure consists of 25 logically formulated items that evaluate the degree of confidence in a
8
series of social conditions. 19 of these items were relatively selected and separated into 4
subfactors: Networking (1-5) - Expressing ideas (6-9) - Teamwork(10-11) Self-Confidence and
Assertiveness (12-19). The responses are collected using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not very well) to 5 (very well). In this study, Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal
consistency reliability of the scale. The bar graphs were generated to demonstrate the distribution of
social self-efficacy between two factors: Faculty and Residence. The post-Stratification sampling
method by gender is applied to minimize the sampling error and potential non-response bias. The t-
test was established to decide whether there is a significant association between the students with a
higher social self-efficacy value with producing better academic performance.
In the academic performance part of METU Students’s Campus Life Satisfaction Survey, the
academic performance of students was evaluated based on the 6 different sub-factors. According to
the average of 14 different likert questions of these factors, a scaled academic performance value
was created for each student. In the following graph, the students’s campus life satisfaction and
their GPA relation were illustrated based on the conducted research question.
4-) Results and Findings
4.1-) Descriptive Statistics
Figure 2: Academic class distribution
In Figure 2, their overall satisfaction scores out of five are shown. Freshman, Sophomore,
and Senior counts are almost the same. The number of Junior students is the most. The numbers
indicated on the graphs show the average of the satisfaction the students get from the campus out of
5. While the satisfaction received from the campus is high in prep (3.48) and junior students (3.52),
these values decrease for the Senior (3,32) and Sophomore (3.34) students.
9
Table 2: Satisfaction values of the factors
In Table 2, the satisfaction values of the four factors are between 2.92 and 3.43 out of 5. The
minimum value is Social Self Efficacy, and the maximum value is Campus Life Satisfaction.
Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha for the survey
Figure 3: Participant’s geographic distribution
4.2-) Major Satisfaction
4.2.1-) Subgroups of Major Satisfaction
The subgroups seen in Table 4 are ranked according to their mean values. It has been
observed that the median value of satisfaction of training is higher than the other subgroups, and the
most repeated value is four. When these descriptive statistics were examined, it was concluded that
METU students were more satisfied with the training.
10
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Major Satisfaction Subgroups (n=249)
The means of these subgroups were investigated according to faculties. When Figure 4 is
examined, it was determined that satisfaction of training was generally higher than others, and
satisfaction of program schedules was less, and the results were consistent with descriptive
statistics. It is observed that satisfactions in faculties are generally evenly distributed. However,
when the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences is examined, it is seen that the training
is quite high compared to the others. On the other hand, program schedules satisfaction in the
faculty of foreign languages is lower than the others. When Figure 4 is examined in general, it has
been determined that the satisfaction values are mostly above three, which means neutral, and it has
been concluded that METU students are satisfied with these subgroups.
Figure 4: Distributions of Major Subgroups by Faculties
11
4.2.2-) Overall Major Satisfactions of Female and Male
Due to the small number of participants who chose prefer not to say and others, only the
overall major satisfactions of female and male were examined. First, it was tested whether the
distributions were normally distributed. According to the Shapiro Wilk normality test results in
Figure 5, the null hypothesis could not be rejected because the p values for both genders were
greater than significance level (p = 0.1203 > 0.05 for female, p = 0.1484 > 0.05 for male).
Therefore, it has been determined that the major satisfactions of female and male are normally
distributed.
Figure 5: Normal Q-Q Plot of Overall Major Satisfactions of Female and Male
Since kurtosis values are greater than three for both gender (see Figure 6,7) , they have
leptokurtic distribution. It means that they tend to produce more outliers than the normal
distribution. The skewness coefficient for female is 0.36 (see Figure 6). Because it is bigger than
zero, distribution of major satisfaction of female appears to be positively skewed, and more of the
values are concentrated on the left side. On the other hand, because coefficient of skewness of male
(-0.30) is less than zero, distribution is negatively skewed, that is, more of the values are
concentrated on the right side of the distribution (see Figure 7).
12
Figure 6: Major Satisfaction of Female Histogram Figure 7: Major Satisfaction of Male Histogram
It was examined whether there was a significant difference between the overall major
satisfaction means of female and male. To answer this, a hypothesis has been established. Since p
value in Table 5 is bigger than significance level (0.268 > 0.05), null hyphothesis could not be
rejected. This means that there is no significant difference between the mean of major satisfaction
of female and mean of major satisfaction of male.
Table 5: R Output of Z-Test
4.2.3-) Feeling Ready for The World of Work
By looking at figure 8, it can be examined that there is a significant percentage of students
are unsure about their readiness for the world of work in earlier years of their education. However,
as students progress through their academic classes, they become more confident in their readiness.
This is indicated by a consistent decrease in the percentage of "unsure" responses and a consistent
increase in the percentage of "yes" responses from the preparation school to the junior year where
for the first time, the answer of "yes" is in the majority with 43.96 percent. In the senior year, a
decrease is observed in the percentage of "yes" responses, and the answers to "yes" and "unsure" are
equalized at 39.13 percent. In the master's year, there are no "unsure" responses. In the PhD year,
again the answer of unsure is in the majority with 50 percent.
13
Figure 8: Feeling Ready for The World of Work Among Academic Class
4.2.4-) Regression Analysis between Academic Performance, Campus Life Satisfaction
and Major Satisfaction
In this part, regression analysis was conducted between academic performance, campus life
satisfaction (predictor variables), and major satisfaction (response variable). It is important to check
whether the response variable (major satisfaction) is normally distributed before conducting a
regression analysis.
Figure 9: A Q-Q plot for Normality
14
The Shapiro-Wilk test is another way to check for normality. By looking at table 6, it can be
examined that since the p-value of major satisfaction is greater than 0.05 (significance level) which
is 0.08, the major satisfaciton is normally distributed. So, there is no need to do any transformation
before conducting the model.
By looking at table 7, it can be examined that the adj-R square value of the model which is
0.46 indicates that these two predictor variables explain about 46% of the variation in Major
Satisfaction. The F-statistic has a p-value (< 2.2e-16) less than the significance level (0.05),
indicating that at least one of the independent variables in the model is significantly related to
Major Satisfaction. Academic Performance and Campus Life Satisfaction p-values are (3.66e-10)
and (<2e-16) respectively. Since The p-values for both predictor variables are less than 0.05, they
are statistically significant.
Major Satisfaction =0.84+0.28 (Academic Performance)+0.44 (Campus Life Satisfaction)
In regression equation: The intercept 0.8447 (β0) represents the predicted value of the major
satisfaction when all predictor variables academic performance and campus life satisfaction are
equal to zero.
𝛽1 = 0.28, indicates that while all other variables are zero, a one-unit increase in academic
performance will lead to an increase of 0.28 units in Major Satisfaction.
𝛽2 = 0.44, indicates that while all other variables are zero, a one-unit increase in Campus Life
Satisfaction will lead to an increase of 0.44 units in Major Satisfaction.
Table 7: Summary of The Model
15
4.2.5-) Correlation Analysis between Academic Performance, Campus Life Satisfaction
and Major Satisfaction
The correlation coefficients in the chart provide a summary of the relationship between the
variables and can help to identify any patterns or associations between the variables. By looking at
figure 10 , it can be examined that the correlation between major satisfaction and campus life
satisfaction (0.62) is positive which indicates that as campus life satisfaction increases, major
satisfaction is likely to increase as well. The correlation is considered "strong" since a value of
correlation coefficient in the interval of 0.6 to 0.799, which implies a large association between the
two variables.
Figure 10: Correlation Chart
4.3-) Social Self-Efficacy
4.3.1-) Internal Consistency Reliability Estimate for The Scale
Table 8: Cronbach’s alpha for (PSSE)
16
Internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.94 was reported by Smith and Betz (2000).
Cronbach’s alpha was obtained to establish the consistency of the scale. The internal consistency
reliability estimate for the scale was (α = 0.78) which indicates it had acceptable consistency.
4.3.2-) Social Self-efficacy Distribution Among Faculty and Residence
Figure 11: Social Self-Efficacy Distribution Among Faculty
Figure 12: Social Self-Efficacy Distribution Among Residence
Social Self-efficacy Distribution was examined among residents and faculties to investigate
their associations. As it is represented in Figure 11 Arts and Science faculty has the highest and the
Foreign Languages faculty has the lowest social self-efficacy values in METU. However, it can be
observed that there is no significant difference between the faculties. By looking at Figure 12 it is
shown that the mean values of in-campus and off-campus residents are extremely close to each
other by 3.5 and 3.35 respectively, so it is conducted that there is no relationship between Social
Self Efficacy and both residents and faculties.
17
4.3.3-) Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender
Table 9: Gender Wise Mean and Total Value
Gender
Social self-efficacy value
SE
Female
2.934634
0.05038247
Male
2.906949
0.05206446
Table 10: Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender
With Post-Stratification on Social Self-Efficacy by Gender in our data, from Table 9 and
Table 10, we can examine that the overall social self-efficacy of Males and Females in METU is
approximately equal to each other. Although, based on our data we can see that Females seem to
have a slight (1.03%) more social self-efficacy effect. At the same time, the small standard error
(~0.05), shows a very small variability in our data. Males have a higher variance, so their variability
is bigger in METU. Both genders have a mean of lower than 3 so both groups seem not to have a
well social self-efficacy. Even after calculating the 95% confidence interval, we can still observe
that both upper and lower bounds are lower than 3. And the total mean (2.91) is also lower than 3.
4.3.4-) Hypothesis Test of Social Self Efficacy In Relation to Academic Performance
Table 11: Output of t-test
18
In investigating whether Students with higher Social Self Efficacy significantly produce
better academic performance a hypothesis has been established. Since the P value in Figure 4 is less
than the significance level (0.000156 < 0.05) we reject the null hypothesis. As a result, students
with a 3.5 or higher Social Self Efficacy Value significantly produce better academic performance
than students with a 3.5 and lower Social Self Efficacy Value.
4.4-) Academic Performance
Figure 13: GPA relationship with campus life satisfaction
In this graph, in which students with a GPA of 3 and above are compared with the overall
satisfaction from campus life, the average campus life satisfaction value is 3.55 and the
corresponding average GPA is 3.35. Moreover, It was investigated whether there is a difference
between the campus satisfaction of university students whose average is above 3 and below 3.
Welch T test was used to test the stated hypotheses because the variance values were different. The
p value was found to be 0.00769 at the 95 percent confidence interval. For this reason, it was
observed that there was a significant difference between the campus satisfaction of the compared
student groups. Test results can be examined in detail in the following table.
Table 12: T-test output
19
4.4.1-) Student Attendance in Classes and Recitations
In the following figure, class attendance and recitation attendendance are illustrated as a
percentage.
Figure 14: Class attendance and recitation attendance
As a minor research topic, the effect of class participation and recitation participation on
GPA was desired to be observed in a descriptive manner. For this reason, the group with the highest
class and recitation participation was selected and the distribution of this group was visualized in
the figure given below.
Figure 15: GPA of 75-100% student’s recitation and class attendance
4.4.2-) Regression Analysis for Academic Performance and Campus Life Satisfaction
By looking at Figure 15, it can be examined that the R square value of the model which is
0.28 indicates the academic performance value explain about 28% of the variation in campus life
20
satisfaction value. The F-statistic has a p-value (< 1.27e-05) less than the significance level (0.05),
indicating that academic performance value is significantly related to campus life satisfaction value.
Table 13: Summary of The Model
4.5-) Campus Life Satisfaction
The graph of the last question, in which students were asked to estimate the most important
factor affecting campus life, is given below.
Figure 16: Students guess for the most important factor affecting campus life
As seen in the graph, the factor that the students thought to have the most impact on campus
life was social self efficacy.
21
Figure 17: Accuracy of linear regression model Figure 18: Accuracy of random forest model
Modeling of student satisfaction with major satisfaction, social efficacy and academic
performance is shown in the graphs above. According to the Linear Regression model, academic
performance has 0.01 p values, social self efficacy has 0.002 p values, and major satisfaction has
2e-16 p values. According to the random forest model, social self efficacy %IncMSE value was 7,
academic performance %IncMSE value was 19 and major satisfaction %IncMSE value was 22.
Although the order of influence of the factors affecting the campus life in which the two models are
compared is different, it has been determined that major satisfaction is the most effective factor in
both models.
5-) Discussion/Conclusion
Academic performance, social self-efficacy and major satisfaction are three important
factors that effect the students’s overall satisfaction. For example, high academic performance can
lead to a sense of accomplishment and pride, which can positively impact a student's life
satisfaction. Furthermore, good academic performance can open doors to various opportunities such
as scholarships, internships, and employment opportunities. Beside academic performance of
students, social self-efficacy can lead such as a sense of belonging, positive relationships with peers
and faculty, and access to resources and support can all contribute to a student's satisfaction with
their college experience. Additionally, a positive campus environment, including the physical
surroundings and overall atmosphere, can also play a role in a student's satisfaction. However, most
of all, the student's satisfaction with the department is most important factor that effects the overall
satisfaction of students. Research has shown that students who are satisfied with their major tend to
have better academic performance. Additionally, major satisfaction can also influence a student's
decision to pursue a graduate degree or enter a specific field of work after graduation. For this
22
reason, the first thing that students should pay attention to when choosing a university is major
satisfaction.
6-) References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt
& Co.
Blai, B. (1989). Health consequences of loneliness: A review of the literature. Journal of American
College Health, 37, 162-167. [1899, BLAI]
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for national
index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 3443.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276302.
Dryden, M., Webster, W. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Rethinking the effects of classroom
environments on student learning in a large school system.1-16
Kamemera, D., Rueben, L.J., & Sillah, M.R. (2003). The effects of academic environment and
background characteristics on student satisfaction and performance: The case of the
South Carolina State University’s School of Business. College Student Journal, 37(2),
298-308
23
Kim, Hee-Jung, (2009). The Relationship between the Campus life satisfaction, the Major
satisfaction and Life style type of Dental technology College Students'. Journal of
Technologic Dentistry, 31(3), 87-103.
Komarraju, M., Swanson, J., & Nadler, D. (2014). Increased Career Self-Efficacy Predicts College
Students’ Motivation, and Course and Major Satisfaction. Journal of Career
Assessment, 22(3), 420432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498484
Lent, R. W., Singley, D. B., Sheu, H. B., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2007). Test of social cognitive
model of academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment,
15(1), 111.
Martirosyan, N.M., Saxon, D.P., & Wanjohi, R. (2014). Student Satisfaction and Academic
Performance in Armenian Higher Education.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixed-Methods
Approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 417-441.
Pesch, K. M., Larson, L. M., & Seipel, M. T. (2018). Career Certainty and Major Satisfaction: The
Roles of Information-Seeking and Occupational Knowledge. Journal of Career
Assessment, 26(4), 583598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717723093
Rode, J. C., Arthaud-Day, M. L., Mooney, C. H., Near, J. P., Baldwin, T. T., Bommer, W. H., &
Rubin, R. S. (2005). Life satisfaction and student performance. Academy of
management learning & education, 4(4), 421-433.
Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and Validation of a Scale of Perceived Social
Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 283301.
https://doi.org/10.1177/106907270000800306
In order to submit this form, you should open it with Adobe Acrobat Reader.
METU STUDENTS' COLLEGE LIFE SATISFACTION SURVEY
Factors Affecting On METU Students’ Life Satisfaction
We are 3rd-year Statistics Students. We are conducting this survey to determine which factors impact the
students’ satisfaction with college life. We would like to know your social level, satisfaction with your
major, and academic performance under the course responsibility. Please complete this approximately 15-
minutes short survey to let us know how satisfied you are with your overall student experience. Your
responses are anonymous, and none of the information will be shared with any third party, so feel free to
provide honest feedback. Thank you for your participation.
Demographic Questions
This part of the survey gathers demographic (age, gender...) data
1-) Which gender do you identify as? *
Female
Male
Others
Prefer not to say
2-) What is your age? *
3-) What is your academic class standing? *
Preparation School
First-year
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Master
Phd
4-) In what Faculty are you registered? Select all that apply. *
Architecture
Arts and Sciences
Economic and Administrative Sciences
Education
Engineering
Foreign Languages
1
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
5-) What is your Major in METU? *
6-) What is your student residency? *
In campus
Off campus (with family, friends or by your own)
7-) Which year did you first start studying at METU? *
Example: 2019
8-) Which city did you live in before coming to METU? *
Major Satisfaction
9-) How likely do you think your high school advisor had effect on your preference of METU? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very likely Very likely
10-) How satisfied are you with the facilities?
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Classrooms capacity
Physical conditions of the classrooms
Lecture materials
Equipment of the department's computer
lab
11-) How satisfied are you with the program schedules?
2
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
Course schedule
Major’s coursesattendance policy
Breaks between courses
12-) How would you rate the content of the department courses? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very well Very well
13-) How would you rate the way you were assessed was a fair test of your skills? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very well Very well
14-) How would you rate the academic staff of the department is sufficient in terms of education
and training? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very well Very well
15-) How would you rate the instructors' knowledge of the principles learning? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very well Very well
16-) Do you think that your training make you ready for the world of work? *
Yes
No
Unsure
17-) Do you think that you will feel competent for the job after graduating from this department? *
Yes
No
Unsure
18-) How likely are you to continue attending this department next year? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very likely Very likely
3
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
19-) How likely are you to recommend this department to others? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very likely Very likely
20-) How would you rate your over all satisfaction with your Major? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not very well Very well
Social Self Efficacy
21-) How well do you become friends with other people? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
22-) How well do you stay friends with other people? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
23-) How well would you make friends in a group where everyone else knows each other? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
24-) How well do you help someone you have recently met become a part of the group to which
you belong? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
25-) How well do you start a conversation with a person you do not know very well? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
26-) How well do you express your opinion to people who are talking about something of interest
4
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
to you? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
27-) How well do you keep your side of your opinion even though your friends disagree with you?
*
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
28-) How well would you share with a group of people an interesting experience you once had? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
29-) How well would you tell other people that they are doing something that makes you
uncomfortable? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
30-) How well do you work in harmony with other people? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
31-) How well do you ask someone for help when you need it? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
32-) Do you go to parties where you don’t know anyone? *
Yes
No
33-) Do you volunteer to lead a group or organization? *
Yes
No
5
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
34.a-) How well would you participate in the conversation? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
35.a-) How well would you control those feelings? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
36.a-) How well did you participate in group activities? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
Academic Performance
37-) What is your current CGPA? *
(If you are in your first semester in first grade or prep school then you can write 0)
38-) What percentage of the classes have you attended so far? *
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
39-) What percentage of the recitations have you attended so far? *
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
40-) How important do you think the tasks assigned to you by your professor are? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very unimportant
Very important
6
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
41-) Have you ever participated in any research at METU? *
Yes
No
42-) Have you ever participated in a scientific study organized by an institution or organization? *
Yes
No
43-) Do you have a scientific article published in an academic journal? *
Yes
No
44-) Have you received certified training that will contribute to your education outside of your
university? *
Yes
No
45-) How many course(s) have you failed? *
0
1
2
3
4+
46-) How would you rate your interaction with your professors IN the classroom? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Very Good
47-) How would you rate your interaction with your professors OUT classroom? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Very Good
48-) How well do you schedule your time? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Very Good
49-) How do you evaluate your preparation for each lecture by reviewing your notes? *
7
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
1 2 3 4 5
50-) How would you evaluate your preparation for exams? *
1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Very Good
Students' College Life Satisfaction
51-) What do you think about extracurricular (non academic) activities on Campus? *
1.
They are too few
2.
They are just right
3.
I was overwhelmed with the number
52-) Please choose the extracurricular(non-academic) activity that satisfies you the most. *
53-) How would you evaluate the below statements in terms of student life?
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
Get training/skill in a special field
Satisfy self needs
Gain knowledge about the world
54-) How would you evaluate your campus life satisfaction in terms of the below statements?
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
Campus Location
Facilities in the Campus
Safety in Campus
On-campus expenses
Course variability
8
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free
Submit
55-) How much do you feel you belong to METU? *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
56-) Please rate your overall satisfaction with the university on a scale of 1 to 5. *
1 2 3 4 5
Not Very Well Very Well
We have one last question for you.
57-) What do you think would have the most impact on the Students’ college life satisfaction? *
Major Satisfaction
Social Self Efficacy
Academic
Performance
9
Create your own automated PDFs with Jotform PDF Editor- It’s free